similar to: a question on df of linear model

Hi, There are 20 subjects grouped by Gender, each subject has 2 tissues (normal vs. cancer). In fact, it is a 2-way anova (factors: Gender and tissue) with tissue nested in subject. I've tried the following: Model 1: lme(response ~ tissue*Gender, random = ~1|subject) Model 2: response ~ tissue*Gender + subject Model 3: response ~ tissue*Gender It seems like Model 1 is the correct one

Hi. I was wondering if anyone might have some suggestions about how I can overcome a problem of "iteration limit reached without convergence" when fitting a mixed effects model. In this study: Outcome is a measure of heart action Age is continuous (in weeks) Gender is Male or Female (0 or 1) Genotype is Wild type or knockout (0 or 1) Animal is the Animal ID as a factor

Dear R-Community! For example I have a study with 4 treatment groups (10 subjects per group) and 4 visits. Additionally, the gender is taken into account. I think - and hope this is a goog idea (!) - this data can be analysed using lme as below. In a balanced design everything is fine, but in an unbalanced design there are differences depending on fitting y~visit*treat*gender or

Dear R people, I am having a problem with modeling the following SAS code in R: Class ID Gr Hemi Region Gender Model Y = Gr Region Hemi Gender Gr*Hemi Gr*Region Hemi*Region Gender*Region Gender*Hemi Gr*Hemi*Region Gender*Hemi*Region Gr*Gender*Hemi*Region Random Intercept Region Hemi /Subject = ID (Gr Gender) I.e., ID is a random effect nested in Gr and Gender, leading to ID-specific

Lets say I have a linear model and I want to find the average expented value of the dependent variable. So let's assume that I'm studying the price I pay for coffee. Price = B0 + B1(weather) + B2(gender) + ... What I'm trying to find is the predicted price for every possible combination of values in the independent variables. So Expected price when: weather=1, gender=male weather=1,

  Hola,   Por favor, ¿podríais indicarme qué recursos (librerías o ideas) pueden resultar de utilidad para crear un gráfico del estilo del de la figura 3.8 del siguiente link?   http://www.tsc.uvigo.es/BIO/Bioing/ChrLDoc3.html#3.5   Actualmente estoy utilizando funciones muy básicas y la verdad es que no me encuentro muy satisfecha con el resultado.   Muchas gracias.   Eva [[alternative HTML

Hi, I need to construct a formula programaticly, and pass it to a function such as the linear mixed model lme. The help says it requires "a two-sided linear formula object describing the fixed-effects part of the model" but I do not know how to create this formula. I have tried various things using formula(x, ...), as.formula(object, env = parent.frame()) and as.Formula(x, ...)

I'm working with a nested model (mixed). I have four factors: Patients, Tissue, sex, and tissue_stage. Totally I have 10 patients, for each patient, there are 2 tissues (Cancer vs. Normal). I think Tissue and sex are fixed. Patient is nested in sex,Tissue is nested in patient, and tissue_stage is nested in Tissue. I tried aov and lme as the following, > aov(gene ~ tissue + gender +

Hi there, > Value=c(709,679,699,657,594,677,592,538,476,508,505,539) > Lard=rep(c("Fresh","Rancid"),each=6) > Gender=rep(c("Male","Male","Male","Female","Female","Female"),2) > Food=data.frame(Value,Lard,Gender) > Food Value Lard Gender 1 709 Fresh Male 2 679 Fresh Male 3 699 Fresh

Hi all, I have collected response time data from 178 participants ('sub') for each combination of 4 within-Ss factors ('con','int','tone','cue'). Additionally, I have recorded the gender of each participant, so this forms a between-Ss factor ('gender'). Normally this would be analyzed using aov:

I have been trying to use lavaan (version 0.4-7) for a simple path model, but the program seems to be computing far less degrees of freedom for my model then it should have. I have 7 variables, which should give (7)(8)/2 = 28 covariances, and hence 28 DF. The model seems to only think I have 13 DF. The code to reproduce the problem is below. Have I done something wrong, or is this something I

Hi There, There are 300 boy students and 100 girl students in a class. One interesting question is whether boy is smarter than girl or not. first given the exam with a difficulty level 1, the number of the student who got A is below 31 for boy, 10 for girl. Then we increase the difficulty level of the exam to level 2, the number of the student who got A is below 32 for boy, 10 for girl. We

. HI there, I'd like to show demonstrate how the chi-squared distribution works, so I've come up with a sample data frame of two categorical variables y<-data.frame(gender=sample(c('Male', 'Female'), size=100000, replace=TRUE, c(0.5, 0.5)), tea=sample(c('Yes', 'No'), size=100000, replace=TRUE, c(0.5, 0.5))) And I'd like to create a list of 100

Hello, I have a problem with selecting the right type of sums of squares for an ANCOVA for my specific experimental data and hypotheses. I do have a basic understanding of the differences between Type-I, II, and III SSs, have read about the principle of marginality, and read Venable's "Exegeses on Linear Models" (http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS3/Exegeses.pdf). I am pretty new to

Hello- I understand that it's convention, when comparing two models using the anova function anova(model1, model2), to put the more "complicated" (for want of a better word) model as the second model. However, I'm using lme in the nlme package and I've found that the order of the models actually gives opposite results. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be the case

Hello Helpers, I have some problems with fitting the model for my data... -->my Literatur says (crawley testbook)= Non-normality of errors-->I get a banana shape Q-Q plot with opening of banana downwards Structure of data: origin wt pes gender 1 wild 5.35 147.0 male 2 wild 5.90 148.0 male 3 wild 6.00 156.0 male 4 wild 7.50 157.0 male 5 wild 5.90

Hi, I am trying a two way anova with unequal sample sizes but results are not as expected: I take the example from Applied Linear Statistical Models (Neter et al. pp889-897, 1996) growth rate gender bone development 1.4 1 1 2.4 1 1 2.2 1 1 2.4 1 2 2.1 2 1 1.7 2 1 2.5 2 2 1.8 2 2 2 2 2 0.7 3 1 1.1 3 1 0.5 3 2 0.9 3 2 1.3 3 2 expected results are

Dear R-user, I have a data like this below, age <- c("young","mid","old") married <- c("no","yes") income <- c("low","high","medium") gender <- c("female","male") I want to make some of combination data like these, age.income.dat <- expand.grid(age,

dear all, I'm building new dataframes from bigger one's using e.g. columns F76, F83, F90: JJ<-data.frame( c( as.character(rep( gender,3))) , c( F76,6- F83, F90) ) Looking into JJ one has: c.as.character.rep.gender..8... c.6...F73..F78..F79..F82..6...F84..F94..F106..F109 1 w 2 2 w

Hi everyone, I'm having some difficulty getting "simple effects" for the ols() function in the rms package. The example below illustrates my difficulty -- I'll be grateful for any help. #make up some data exD <- structure(list(Gender = structure(c(1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L), .Label = c("F", "M"), class = "factor"),